Built For March: Separating AAC Contenders from Pretenders

Greg goes in on the AAC

Winning a Conference Tournament: Timing vs. Talent

Winning a conference tournament isn’t just about talent—it’s about timing. Some teams peak early, dominate the regular season, and then fall flat when the lights shine brightest. Others struggle through January, only to catch fire in March and run the table.

So what makes a championship team?

That’s the question I set out to answer. I’m breaking this down in two ways:

1️⃣ The Eye Test – Who looks the part of a champion based on roster, momentum, and consistency?
2️⃣ The Metrics – Using past AAC champions as a blueprint, which teams actually measure up to a title-winning formula?

Beyond that, we’ll dig into clutch performance (because March is all about late-game execution) and how past champions elevated their play when it mattered most. Finally, I’ll lay out what North Texas needs to improve if they want to make a real push for the title.

Let’s start with the eye test—before the numbers tell us who’s actually built for a championship run.

The Eye Test—Ranking the Championship Contenders

Before diving into the numbers, I want to trust my gut and rank the top contenders for the AAC Tournament Championship purely based on the eye test. This means ignoring the advanced stats (for now) and focusing on how these teams look on the court, how they’ve progressed throughout the season, their roster strengths, and my overall feel for how the tournament will play out.

Here’s my initial ranking based on the eye test alone:

1. Memphis – Most talented roster, but plays down to competition.

2. FAU – Second-best roster, figuring out how to win close games.

3. UAB – Offensively dominant, concerns on defense.

4. North Texas – A gritty, defensive-minded team, but is the offense good enough?

5. Temple – Injury-riddled but dangerous at full strength.

6. ECU – Talented but inconsistent.

7. Tulane – Explosive playmakers but questionable consistency.

The Case for Each Team

• Memphis: Talent-wise, they should win this. The concern? They go cold for stretches and let weaker teams hang around. Are they better than they were in non-conference play? Hard to tell.

• FAU: They blow out weaker teams but have struggled against elite competition. Are they learning how to win tight games? Beating Temple was a step forward.

• UAB: Elite offense, questionable defense. They have one of the best players and coaches in the league.

• North Texas: Are they truly contenders? Losing to UTSA made me doubt them, but three straight wins have brought them back into the conversation. Still, they lack an alpha scorer.

• Temple: Jamal Mashburn’s health is key. Without him, they’ve lost four straight.

• ECU/Tulane: Wild cards. ECU’s CJ Walker is a rising star, and Tulane’s Rowan Brumbaugh & Gregg Glenn are dangerous.

After breaking down the contenders through the eye test, it's time to put those gut reactions to the test. The eye test gives us a feel for who looks the part, but numbers provide the hard truth. You are what your stats say you are, and history tells us that championship teams consistently hit key benchmarks in offensive efficiency, defensive strength, and late-game execution. So, how do these AAC contenders actually stack up against the metrics? Let’s dive into the Championship Blueprint and see which teams have the DNA of a title winner—and which ones might be fooling us.

Building the Blueprint—How Past AAC Champions Won

To build a championship formula, I analyzed past AAC tournament winners and identified 17 key metrics that championship teams tend to excel in. These are the numbers that separate champions from pretenders:

Championship Team Blueprint

1. Offensive Production & Efficiency

✅ Points Per Game (PTS/G): ≥ 74 PPG
✅ Offensive Rating (ORtg): ≥ 112
✅ Effective FG% (eFG%): ≥ 50%
✅ True Shooting % (TS%): ≥ 54%
✅ Assist % (AST%): ≥ 50%

2. Defensive Strength

✅ Defensive Rating (DRtg): ≤ 100
✅ Opponent PTS/G Allowed: ≤ 71 PPG
✅ Defensive Rebounding % (DRB%): ≥ 67%
✅ Turnover % Forced (TOV%): ≥ 14%

3. Paint & Perimeter Balance

✅ Points in the Paint (PITP %): ≥ 40%
✅ 3PT Attempt Rate (3PAr): 30-40%
✅ 3PT % (Three-Point Percentage): ≥ 34%
✅ 2PT % (Two-Point Percentage): ≥ 50%

4. Ball Control & Pace

✅ Assist-to-Turnover Ratio (AST/TOV): ≥ 1.2
✅ Turnover % (TOV%): ≤ 15%
✅ Free Throw Attempt Rate (FTA Rate): ≥ 32%
✅ Pace: Between 63-71

Now, let’s rank the current AAC contenders against this blueprint.

1. UAB 🏆 (14/17 Blueprint Categories Met)

✅ Elite Offense:

• Highest Offensive Rating (ORtg: 119.27) – UAB runs one of the most efficient offenses in the league. They consistently generate high-quality shots and capitalize on their possessions.

• Highest PTS/G (82.4 PPG) – Their ability to score in volume while maintaining efficiency makes them the toughest offensive team in this group.

✅ Strong Rebounding:

• Elite Defensive Rebounding (71.2% DRB%) – One of the top teams in controlling the boards, limiting second-chance points.

• Above-Average Offensive Rebounding (38.8% ORB%) – Secures extra possessions, a crucial aspect of championship teams.

✅ Balanced Scoring:

• Good 3PT Shooting (34.1%) – Hits the championship threshold but not elite.

• Strong Interior Scoring (47.2% PITP%) – Consistently scores inside, ensuring a balanced attack.

❌ Major Weakness – Defense

• Poor Defensive Rating (DRtg: 110.58) – UAB allows too many points per possession, which can become a liability in a tournament setting.

• Opponent eFG% (51.2%) – Teams shoot above championship levels against them, indicating a lack of defensive pressure.

• Needs Defensive Improvement – If they could limit opponent efficiency and force more turnovers, they would be undisputed championship favorites.

🔹 Verdict:

UAB is the closest thing to a championship-caliber team offensively and on the glass, but their defensive inconsistency keeps them from being a lock. The numbers match what the eye test shows—they struggle with dribble penetration too often. Andy Kennedy is a strong defensive strategist, so they could shore things up by the AAC tournament. They still have Yak protecting the rim, and he remains one of the league's best shot blockers.

2. FAU (13/17 Blueprint Categories Met)

✅ Balanced Offense:

• Elite eFG% (53.9%) and TS% (57.5%) – FAU is an efficient scoring machine, making the most of their possessions.

• Solid Passing (AST%: 56.9%) – The ball movement is strong, meaning they generate high-quality looks consistently.

• Interior Scoring (45.3% PITP%) – Shows they have a reliable post presence, an important factor for championship-level teams.

✅ Defensive Strengths:

• Strong Defensive Rebounding (69.9% DRB%) – Limits opponents’ second-chance points.

❌ Major Weakness – Defense is Below Championship Level

• Defensive Rating (DRtg: 109.77) is too high for a true championship contender.

• Opponent Effective FG% (50.4%) – FAU allows teams to score efficiently, which is a red flag in tournament play.

• Needs Better On-Ball Defense – If they can force tougher shots, FAU would be a legitimate title team.

🔹 Verdict:
FAU has one of the most complete offensive teams and is above average defensively, but not dominant enough on defense to be the top choice. If they improve shot-contesting and force tougher looks, they could be title favorites.

3. Memphis (12/17 Blueprint Categories Met)

✅ Explosive Scoring Team:

• High Offensive Rating (ORtg: 113.09) – Not as dominant as FAU or UAB, but still strong.

• PTS/G (79.4 PPG) – Memphis can put points up quickly.

• Elite 3PT Shooting (40% 3P%) – The best perimeter shooting team in the group.

✅ Decent Interior Play:

• 42.7% PITP% – Not elite, but still solid.

• Balanced inside-out game – Memphis can win in different ways, which is key in tournament play.

❌ Turnovers & Ball Security Issues

• Turnover % (TOV%: 17.0%) is too high – Memphis wastes too many possessions, which limits their offensive ceiling.

• AST/TOV Ratio (1.03) – Below the 1.2 championship standard – Shows sloppy ball movement and poor decision-making at times.

❌ Defensive Concerns:

• Defensive Rating (DRtg: 104.3) – A solid but not elite defense.

• Opponent Offensive Rebound% (33.8%) – The worst among contenders, allowing teams to get too many second chance opportunities.

🔹 Verdict:

Memphis can outscore a lot of teams, but turnovers and defensive lapses hold them back. They go through stretches of inconsistency on both ends of the floor. Defensively, their floor is low, but their ceiling is high—when they lock in, they can be the best defensive team in the league. The game against Wichita State is a prime example of why there are questions, with players simply not giving enough effort on defense. Then there’s the turnover issue, which is puzzling considering they have two solid point guards, yet they can still give the ball away 20 times in a game.

4. North Texas (11/17 Blueprint Categories Met)

✅ Elite Defense – Best in the Group:

• Lowest Defensive Rating (DRtg: 100.99) – North Texas is the toughest defensive team, shutting opponents down consistently.

• Opponent PTS/G (60.1 PPG) – Championship-level defense that limits scoring opportunities.

✅ Great Rebounding & Paint Defense:

• 72.8% DRB% – The best rebounding team – North Texas dominates the glass, limiting second-chance points.

• Opponent 3PT% (30.8%) – Forces teams into bad shots from deep, a key defensive trait.

❌ Major Weakness – Scoring Efficiency is Below Championship Level

• Offensive Rating (ORtg: 113.8) is below UAB & FAU – While not bad, it’s not at championship levels.

• eFG% (51.9%) is the second worst among contenders – Struggles to generate high-quality shots.

• 2P% (50.1%) is the lowest in the group – They lack an inside consistency.

🔹 Verdict:

North Texas is the best defensive team in the league but lacks the offensive firepower to match. Their success hinges on finding more efficient scoring inside the paint and developing consistency from beyond the arc—they’re either hot or cold from three. Atin Wright often helps steady the offense on rough shooting nights, but they still struggle to generate enough paint points per game. The good news is their effective field goal percentage (eFG) has improved in conference play, but to make a deep run, they need more reliable scoring to complement their elite defense.

5. Tulane (10/17 Blueprint Categories Met)

✅ Inside Attack:

• Decent Interior Game (42.4% PITP%) – Not elite, but serviceable.

❌ Low Offensive Ceiling:

• Lowest Offensive Rating (ORtg: 109.57) – The worst in this group.

• Limited Three-Point Game (32.9% 3P%) – Below championship efficiency from deep.

🔹 Verdict:
Tulane is not close enough to a championship-level team.

Clutch Performance—Who Wins Close Games?

I wasn’t satisfied with just the full-season stats—I wanted to dig into “Clutch Stats” using CBBAnalytics, which tracks performance in the final four minutes of regulation or overtime when the game is within five points. Winning close games in March is crucial, right? My goal was to identify the best teams in high-pressure moments.

There’s not a huge gap between the top teams, but championship squads consistently excel in execution, efficiency, and composure when it matters most. Using 19 key metrics, we’ve outlined the ideal blueprint for clutch success based on past champions' performances.

1. Clutch Offensive Production & Efficiency

✅ Clutch Offensive Rating (ORtg): ≥ 120

✅ Clutch Effective FG% (eFG%): ≥ 50%

---

2. Clutch Defensive Strength

✅ Clutch Defensive Rating (DRtg): ≤ 105

✅ Clutch Defensive Rebounding % (DRB%): ≥ 68%

✅ Clutch Opponent Effective FG% ≤ 42%

✅ Clutch Opponent Turnover % ≥ 12%

✅ Clutch Opponent 2PT% ≤ 42%

✅ Clutch Opponent 3PT% ≤ 28%

✅ Clutch Opponent Off Rebound % ≤ 35%

---

3. Clutch Paint & Perimeter Balance

✅ Clutch 3PT Attempt Rate (3PAr) 30-40%

✅ Clutch 3PT% (Three-Point Percentage) ≥ 34%

✅ Clutch 2PT% (Two-Point Percentage): ≥ 50%

✅ Clutch Free Throw % (FT%): ≥ 75%

---

4. Clutch Ball Control & Composure

✅ Clutch Turnover % (TOV%) ≤ 15%

✅ Clutch Offensive Rebound % (ORB%) ≥ 35%

✅ Clutch Opponent Defensive Rebound % ≤ 65%

✅ Personal Fouls (PFs) ≤ 2.7

✅ Personal Fouls Drawn (PFDs) ≥ 3.0

✅ Opponent FT Attempt Rate ≤ 65%

Final Clutch Rankings: Contenders vs. the Blueprint

In high-pressure moments, FAU emerges as the most complete team, while UAB and Memphis have elite offense but defensive flaws. North Texas' defense is strong, but their offense struggles in the clutch.

FAU – 16 of 19 Metrics Hit ✅🔥

Championship DNA is there. FAU checks nearly every box, making them the most balanced team in the field. They have an elite offense (59.1% eFG) and dominant defensive rebounding (70.9%), and they force turnovers while limiting opponent 3PT success. Their only weaknesses? They don’t dominate the offensive glass (27.9% ORB%), and their defensive rating (102.0) is a bit higher than ideal.

🔹 Biggest Strength: Scoring efficiency & defensive control
🔹 Biggest Weakness: Offensive rebounding & defensive rating
🔹 Championship Outlook: Best overall contender, built to win in clutch moments.

🔹 Player Data In the Clutch :

· LeLand Walker - 31.8% Usage%. 50% from the field. 6/1 AST/TOV

· Kaleb Glenn – 81.8% from 2-point range (9/11)

· Ken Evans – 44.4% from 3-point range.

---

Memphis – 11 of 19 Metrics Hit ✅🔥

Offensive powerhouse, but defensive issues remain. Memphis is the best scoring team in the field, with a 145.5 offensive rating and a deadly 44.4% 3PT shooting mark. They get to the free throw line (105.6 FT Rate) more than anyone, but their defensive flaws stand out—allowing a 56.2% opponent eFG is a major red flag.

🔹 Biggest Strength: Scoring dominance (inside & out)
🔹 Biggest Weakness: Defense allows too many easy shots
🔹 Championship Outlook: They can outscore anyone but need to tighten up on defense.

Player Data In the Clutch :

· PJ Haggerty - 34.7% Usage%. 21 Fouls Drawn in 57 minutes. 55.6 from 3-point range.

· Tyrese Hunter – 10/21 from the field 47.6%.

· Dain Dainja – 44.7% from the field.

---

UAB – 10 of 19 Metrics Hit ✅

Solid but unspectacular. UAB does a lot of things well, but they don’t excel at enough of them to be a true championship favorite. Their 52.8% 2PT shooting and strong rebounding (65.5% DRB%) make them tough, but their opponent turnover rate (2.4%) is shockingly low, meaning they don’t create enough defensive chaos.

🔹 Biggest Strength: Balanced scoring & rebounding
🔹 Biggest Weakness: Doesn’t force enough turnovers
🔹 Championship Outlook: A strong team, but lacking an elite skill to push them over the top.

🔹 Player Data In the Clutch :

· Yaxel Lendeborg - 33% Usage%. 58.3% from the field. 23 Rebounds 7 Blocks

· Efrem Johnson – 27.3% from 3-point range.

· Alejandro Vasquez – 37.5% from 3-point range.

---

North Texas – 5 of 19 Metrics Hit ❌

Gritty but not a contender. North Texas plays fundamentally sound basketball, limiting turnovers (11.8% TOV%) and hitting free throws (83.7%), but they struggle to score efficiently (44.9% eFG) and get crushed on the boards (56.3% DRB%). Their defensive rating (116.6) is also too high for a title-winning team.

🔹 Biggest Strength: Taking care of the ball & free throw shooting
🔹 Biggest Weakness: Rebounding & scoring efficiency
🔹 Championship Outlook: They fight hard, but they don’t meet enough elite-level metrics to win it all.

Player Data In the Clutch:

· Brenen Lorient – 24.3% Usage%. 53.8% from the field. 4 Blocks. 10 fouls drawn.

· Johnathan Massie – 27.9% Usage%. 57.1% from the field.

· Atin Wright – 20% from the field. 30% from 3-point range.

How Championship Teams Elevated Their Game in the AAC Tournament

Championship teams often reach another level in the postseason, making key adjustments that sharpen their efficiency and execution when it matters most. I took a deep dive into how teams in the AAC elevate their play from the regular season to the conference tournament, and the data reveals clear areas of improvement that align with the blueprint for success.

---

1. Offensive Efficiency Takes a Leap

Regular Season Offensive Rating: 112.7
Tournament Offensive Rating: 120.9 🔼 (+8.2)

Teams that contend for championships find ways to elevate their scoring efficiency when the stakes are highest. In the AAC tournament, championship teams increased their Offensive Rating by over 8 points, showcasing their ability to capitalize on scoring opportunities.

Key areas of improvement:

• Effective FG%: 50.9% → 54.9% 🔼

• True Shooting %: 55.2% → 58.8% 🔼

• 2P%: 50.5% → 56.1% 🔼

• 3P%: 34.3% → 39.1% 🔼

---

2. Defensive Strength Increases Against Tougher Competition

Regular Season Defensive Rating: 100.8
Tournament Defensive Rating: 97.4 🔽 (-3.4)

Key defensive improvements:

• Opponent FG%: 43.1% → 40.2% 🔽

• Opponent eFG%: 47.6% → 44.0% 🔽

• Opponent 3P%: 31.7% → 28.3% 🔽

---

3. Championship-Level Teams Control the Paint and Glass

Regular Season Points in the Paint: 39.8 PPG
Tournament Points in the Paint: 41.7 PPG 🔼 (+1.9)

One of the most noticeable shifts in tournament play is the emphasis on dominating the paint. Teams increased their inside scoring efficiency, leading to a nearly 2-point increase in Points in the Paint per game.

Rebounding was also a major factor:

• Defensive Rebounding %: 69.8% → 72.5% 🔼

• Offensive Rebounding %: 34.1% → 36.8% 🔼

These improvements show a focus on securing defensive stops and extending possessions with offensive boards, both critical factors in winning close tournament games.

---

4. Turnovers & Ball Control Become More Disciplined

Regular Season Turnover %: 14.7%
Tournament Turnover %: 12.3% 🔽 (-2.4)

Winning in March isn’t just about scoring—it’s about taking care of the ball. Championship-level teams reduced their turnover percentage by over 2%, ensuring they maximized each possession.

Other key ball control improvements:

• Assist-to-Turnover Ratio: 1.27 → 1.68 🔼

• Opponent Turnover % Forced: 15.2% → 16.8% 🔼

---

5. Free Throw Rate Shows Aggression on Offense

Regular Season Free Throw Attempt Rate: 37.2%
Tournament Free Throw Attempt Rate: 40.9% 🔼 (+3.7)

Great teams get to the free-throw line more often in the postseason, increasing their FTA Rate by nearly 4%. This shows that championship teams attacked the rim more aggressively, drawing fouls and getting easy points at the line.

Where North Texas Needs to Improve Based on This Comparison

1. Offensive Efficiency

✅ Current Strengths:

• UNT has a solid shooting profile (52.96% eFG%)

• They take quality shots from three (38.2% 3P%)

🔻 Where UNT Must Improve:

• Raise PTS/G from 69.1 → 74+ PPG (Champions elevated their scoring output by at least 5 PPG)

• Boost ORtg from 117.02 → 122+ (Historically, championship teams increased their ORtg by 5+ points in the AAC Tournament)

• Increase AST% from 43.3% → 50%+

Takeaway:
UNT must generate more assisted baskets in the AAC Tournament. The best championship teams created easier looks inside instead of relying on jump shots.

2. Defensive Strength

✅ Current Strengths:

• UNT has strong defensive rebounding (71.4% DRB%)

• They force a decent number of turnovers (10.9% STL%)

🔻 Where UNT Must Improve:

• Lower Opponent PTS/G from 62.4 → 58 or lower (Champions improved defensive efficiency by allowing 3-6 fewer points per game)

• Improve DRtg from 105.7 → Below 100 (Past champions consistently pushed their Defensive Rating under 100)

• Force more turnovers (currently 8.9% STL%) → 12%+ (Title teams increased their forced turnovers to generate easy fast breaks)

3. Paint & Perimeter Balance

✅ Current Strengths:

• UNT gets 39.3% of its points in the paint (PITP%), close to the ideal 40%+

• They get to the free throw line at a solid rate (38.4% FTA Rate)

🔻 Where UNT Must Improve:

• Increase PITP% from 39.3% → 42-45% (Championship teams consistently attacked the paint more in the tournament)

• Boost Free Throw Rate from 38.4% → 42%+ (Champions created more contact and forced teams into foul trouble)

• Increase Inside Shot Efficiency (currently 50.6% 2P%) → 53%+ (Champions became more efficient inside the arc in the tournament)

Final Takeaways: What UNT Must Do in the AAC Tournament

· If North Texas wants to play at a championship level, they need to elevate their play in these specific areas:

· 📈 Raise Offensive Output
✅ Increase PTS/G from 69.1 → 74+
✅ Improve Offensive Rating from 117.02 → 122+
✅ Boost AST% from 43.3% → 50%+ (better ball movement = easier baskets)

· 🛡️ Tighten Up the Defense
✅ Lower Opponent PTS/G from 62.4 → Below 58
✅ Improve Defensive Rating from 105.7 → Under 100
✅ Force more turnovers (increase STL% from 8.9% → 12%+)

· 🏀 Dominate the Paint & Free Throw Line
✅ Increase PITP% from 39.3% → 42-45%
✅ Get to the line more (FTA Rate from 38.4% → 42%+)
✅ Improve 2P% efficiency from 50.6% → 53%+

Final Thoughts on the Path to an AAC Championship

With the regular season winding down and the AAC Tournament approaching, the picture of a championship team has never been clearer. I’ve gone through the eye test, historical championship blueprints, clutch performance under pressure, and how past champions elevated their play in the tournament—all leading to one major question: Who can take the next step and rise to a championship level?

The Formula for Success

Through this breakdown, we've seen what separates contenders from champions. It's not just about talent or past success—it’s about peaking at the right time. The teams that have hoisted the trophy before did so by improving key areas in the postseason, particularly in:

✅ Offensive Efficiency: Increasing shot-making ability, maximizing possessions, and limiting mistakes.
✅ Defensive Tightening: Lowering opponents’ scoring efficiency, forcing turnovers, and contesting shots more aggressively.
✅ Paint & Perimeter Control: Attacking the rim more, rebounding at an elite level, and maintaining balance between inside and outside scoring.
✅ Ball Security & Poise: Taking care of the ball, forcing opponents into errors, and winning at the free-throw line.

The blueprint is there, it's up to these teams to follow it.

Who’s Best Positioned for a Championship Run?

Right now, UAB, FAU, and Memphis look the most like past AAC champions. UAB has the best offensive firepower, FAU has the most complete clutch profile, and Memphis is the most talented team on paper. However, none of them fully check all the boxes, meaning the tournament is wide open for a team to get hot at the right time.

What Does North Texas Need to Do?

For North Texas, the challenge is clear—they either need to clean up their offensive efficiency issues or take their already elite defense to an extreme level. Realistically, the solution probably lies somewhere in between. Offense remains the biggest obstacle to their title chances, which is why I don’t see them as a true contender.

And look, I get it—there have been stretches this season where UNT has posted good, even great, offensive efficiency numbers. But it still doesn’t inspire confidence knowing they lack an alpha scorer or a guard who can take over a game. Jossell and Wright are talented but streaky, and it’s not hard for opposing teams to take them out of the equation. I certainly hope they can elevate their play in key areas and prove me wrong, making a real run in March.